Susan's Place Transgender Resources

California Supreme Court just ruled in favor of Same Sex Marriage.  According to an email I just got from Equality California eqca.org

Thats good, unfortunately those against this have enough signatures to get the issue on the ballot in November.  The want to change the California constitution to forbid this forever.

Last time it was on the ballot, the opposition won.

Time will tell.

Sarah L.

Dead in the water now.  The Court outright said that is was unconstitutional to define marriage that way as long as there were special legal and financial perks to be had.

great news but will be a long battle now to defeat the amendment

No battle, the amendment can not do something the Court says is against the Constitution, without amending the document itself, very hard to do.

Quote from: tekla on May 15, 2008, 02:38:56 PM
No battle, the amendment can not do something the Court says is against the Constitution, without amending the document itself, very hard to do.

Um ... my understanding is that amending the document itself (the California Constitution, the one on which this decision was based) is precisely what the ballot initiative aims to do.

---

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

State Supreme Court says same-sex couples have right to marry

link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL&tsp=1)

Quote"The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.

QuoteThe celebration could turn out to be short-lived, however. The court's decision could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.

yeah unfortunately the anti-queer groups have collected 1.1 million signatures and will force this on the ballot.  if voters vote No to same-sex marriage, it will nullify the courts decision.

I truly wish that we could put this marriage thing on hold until we can replace the president.  The attempt to amend our state constitution will only bring out more Republicans to the voting polls.

I believe that was the single issue that put GW back into office in the last election.  "Gay marriage" brought out all the bigots to vote.

Cindi

I'll worry about November tomorrow!  I'm heading straight to the Castro after work.  Partaaay!   ;D

1.1 million signitures sounds like a lot but California has a population over 40 million.  The November election will bring out the Democratic hordes and lot's of liberal voters.  More importantly, the Governator supports the court ruling; the Repubs biggest gun will be on the sidelines for this one.  We can win this one at the ballot box.

California leads the nation.  1 in 9 Americans now live in a state where same sex marriage is LEGAL!

claire im jealous i want to goto the party but im stuck here in marriage inequality NY

>I truly wish that we could put this marriage thing on hold until we can replace the president.  The attempt to amend our state constitution will only bring out more Republicans to the voting polls.

I believe that was the single issue that put GW back into office in the last election.  "Gay marriage" brought out all the bigots to vote.

Cindi

Could be the decision was announce, the religious right wingger's want an issue they can unite behind and bring out the conservative vote. It is a conservative court, and most are not thrilled with Mc Cain and are treating to stay home.

1.  They barely got 1.1 million signatures, and at that, over 600,000 are being questioned.  Fall even one person below 1.1 million - it don't happen.

2.   This is so last years news last week.  Really we're over it.  We have record foreclosure rates, both small and huge houses.  Gas is approaching $5 a gallon.  The war is getting worse.  The economy is getting worse.  The worlds going to hell in a handbag for all sorts of reasons having zip to do with sex (gay or otherwise).  Does anyone really care what the homos are up to?   SF had its Winter of Love (despite my rather eloquent arguments against marriage for everyone and anyone) and thousands of people got hitched.  Its happened in other places now too.  Guess what?  The earth did not spin off its axis.  The sun still rises in the east and sets in the west.  Life goes on.

3.  In case you haven't been paying attention, this is not looking to be some major Republican Year here.  They are going to have great trouble getting out the base vote, and in Calif, even Arnold, no fan of this at all, doesn't endorse it.  So, the only way they are going to gin up support is to bring people and money in from out of state, which, when it comes out (and it will) is almost a guarantee of losing.  We stay out of political deals elsewhere (mostly places we don't even know where they are if they are not New York) and expect the same.  Out of State money is the kiss of death.


California leads the nation. -- 'Twas ever thus, even when everyone tries to ignore it.

tekla you are incorrect about the referendum.  they have collected 1.1 million signatures but only need 600,000+ I don't remember the exact number.  Many signatures will be invalid but considering they have close to 500,000 more than needed I am sure this will make it to the ballot this November.

The encouraging news is that HRC conducted a poll showing cali residents are dead split on those who support the court decision and those against.  This is a big change from 2000.

From the SF Chronicle Article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL&tsp=1):

QuoteThe constitutional amendment will qualify for the November ballot if officials determine that at least 694,354 of the signatures are valid, a decision due by mid-June.

That is, it's not that there are 695,000 being questioned, but that there need be only 695,000 found to be valid, or just over 400,000 found invalid. I don't think there's any suggestion that that is likely to happen; indeed it would be quite unusual. So there's almost certain to be a vote this November. If it were to fail, that would be a real milestone -- it would be the first time voters in any state approved full marriage rights for homosexual couples, albeit in a passive (that is, a "no" vote) rather than active way.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on May 16, 2008, 02:30:51 PM
From the SF Chronicle Article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL&tsp=1):

QuoteThe constitutional amendment will qualify for the November ballot if officials determine that at least 694,354 of the signatures are valid, a decision due by mid-June.

Tekla and I rarely agree on anything but I'll wager she doesn't consider the Chron a reliable source of information.  It's mostly known for publishing malicious gossip about The City's swells and pols.

Okay -- I don't know much about the papers in SF. This is from the CA Sec. of State webpage (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#pending_sigs), if you prefer:

Quote from: CA Sec. of StateLimit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 11/29/07 Circulation Deadline: 04/28/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

The L.A. Times also reports 1.1M signitures submitted, but says that the required number is well over 700k. I have no idea where they got that number. The N.Y. Times also says over 1M signatures have been submitted.

Quote from: L.A. TimesA random sampling of those signatures is underway, and in late June the secretary of state is expected to announce whether, as expected, the groups collected the 763,790 valid signatures necessary to qualify the measure for the November ballot. If approved by voters, the initiative would overturn the Supreme Court decision, according to Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for groups backing the measure. He predicted it would be "a dominant issue" in November.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on May 16, 2008, 05:11:06 PM
Okay -- I don't know much about the papers in SF. This is from the CA Sec. of State webpage (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#pending_sigs), if you prefer:

Quote from: CA Sec. of StateLimit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 11/29/07 Circulation Deadline: 04/28/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

The L.A. Times also reports 1.1M signitures submitted, but says that the required number is well over 700k. I have no idea where they got that number. The N.Y. Times also says over 1M signatures have been submitted.

Quote from: L.A. TimesA random sampling of those signatures is underway, and in late June the secretary of state is expected to announce whether, as expected, the groups collected the 763,790 valid signatures necessary to qualify the measure for the November ballot. If approved by voters, the initiative would overturn the Supreme Court decision, according to Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for groups backing the measure. He predicted it would be "a dominant issue" in November.

So, were you a party pooper before you transitioned or is that a side effect HRT?

Quote from: Claire de Lune on May 16, 2008, 06:54:08 PM
So, were you a party pooper before you transitioned or is that a side effect HRT?

:laugh:

It's a result of testosterone poisoning. :P

(Transition is, alas, yet to happen :-\ ... to begin this fall, perhaps?)

I'm rooting for California. I have several friends out there (that is, irl, not online) who will get an opportunity to affirm this decision, and I'm crossing my fingers that this will be the year. I'm thinking optimistically -- this will be the first time voters approve full marriage rights, rather than just a judicial panel. :)

The previous ban on gay marriage amendment was passed in an off-season election where there was poor voter turnout.  The Fundies pull that trick regularly to get BS laws passed.  If they can get out the vote at the mega-churches they stand a good chance of passing some draconian law.  The odd thing is the government often finds ways to get around them.

As Tekla mentioned, people in this election have a lot more to be concerned about than the sexual preferences of people they don't know.  The Repubs are going to have to spend a lot of dough just to maintain a presence in Congress.

I'm optimistic.  I think the queer community will prevail.

interesting point claire, and many young and liberal voters will turn up to the polls to vote for Obama so hopefully they will also vote against the amendment

Quote from: Claire de Lune on May 16, 2008, 08:09:11 PM

I'm optimistic.  I think the queer community will prevail.

I never underestimate the power of the bigots.  But I live here in CA and you know how I'll vote. Everyone deserves equal rights.  Isn't that what "equal" means?

Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 20, 2008, 03:20:02 PM
I never underestimate the power of the bigots.  But I live here in CA and you know how I'll vote. Everyone deserves equal rights.  Isn't that what "equal" means?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are MORE equal than others"
   -George Orwell "Animal Farm"

I'll be hoping that the Intiative fails. Not that it'll affect me way over here in the East, but it would be nice to see the most populous state vote for equal marriage rights.

Maybe for the next few months, if tekla's right, the Fundies here will all pack up and move to Cali!! :laugh: We might get some more progressive legislation passed here without them!!

Or, I suppose I could move back to Jersey, the densest state population-wise. :)

N~

nichole this makes me laugh, i have always fantasized a mass emigration of queers to southern states where we take over and change their policies.

Quote from: Nichole on May 20, 2008, 05:05:12 PM
I'll be hoping that the Intiative fails. Not that it'll affect me way over here in the East, but it would be nice to see the most populous state vote for equal marriage rights.

Maybe for the next few months, if tekla's right, the Fundies here will all pack up and move to Cali!! :laugh: We might get some more progressive legislation passed here without them!!

Or, I suppose I could move back to Jersey, the densest state population-wise. :)

N~

It's a risky strategy for the fundies.  We'll get a hold of thir children and turn 'em into a bunch of homos and lebos, just like the rest of us here in the Golden State!  If the preachers send their flocks to the land of high rent and gasoline, they won't have much left for the collection plate either!

Send 'em out here.  We'll take good care of them!

C

send the preachers, they are all closeted homosexuals anyway